Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261899AbVEWUA6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2005 16:00:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261942AbVEWUA5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2005 16:00:57 -0400 Received: from ns9.hostinglmi.net ([213.194.149.146]:11190 "EHLO ns9.hostinglmi.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261899AbVEWUAr (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2005 16:00:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:02:21 +0200 From: DervishD To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Linux-kernel Subject: Re: [RESEND] Hard disk LBA sector count is not always the same Message-ID: <20050523200221.GE57@DervishD> Mail-Followup-To: Jeff Garzik , Linux-kernel References: <20050523121424.GB339@DervishD> <42922175.8090005@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <42922175.8090005@pobox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Organization: DervishD X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ns9.hostinglmi.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - dervishd.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2135 Lines: 52 Hi Jeff :) Thanks for your answer, Jeff :)) * Jeff Garzik dixit: > DervishD wrote: > > current capacity is 156299375 > > native capacity is 156301488 > Hard drives have a feature that can reserve a certain amount of space > away from the user. Yes, I know, but the problem is that 2.4 kernels *does* reserve that space but 2.6 certainly not, and if I boot into 2.6 and then reboot into 2.4, then 2.4 *does NOT* reserve that space. By the way, the 'current capacity' is reported as the above only if I boot into 2.4 from power off. As soon as I boot into 2.6, the drive seems to be reporting the second number as the current capacity (capacity_2). I've check the code in 2.4.29 and the difference between the setmax capacity and the capacity_2 only happens in that case, when cold booting into 2.4. Anytime 2.6 is involved, the drive reports the same capacity in both calls (idedisk_read_native_max_address_ext() and the one that gives lba_capacity_2 its value). > Linux IDE often does 'set max' to make 100% of the hard drive > visible to the OS. See the paragraph above: if I partition the disk under 2.6 the partition will have a bigger address than the one that will be available under 2.4, and that can give errors while accessing that extra sectors. What can I do? For technical limitations in my box, I have to use 2.6 for repartitioning that disk (and I will be doing that in less than a month) and this will lead to unaccesible sectors when I boot back into my usual 2.4 kernel :( Moreover, I've googled a bit and my disk doesn't seem to have this problem, so I'm worried about a disk failure :( Thanks again for your help, Jeff. Ra?l N??ez de Arenas Coronado -- Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net http://www.pleyades.net & http://www.gotesdelluna.net It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/